May 26, 2005

It covers a variety of subjects including a discussion of the difference betwen Napoleonic leadership (command and control) and Tolstoyan leadership (engage and enrol).

By the way, I'm currently reading an old classic on how to make presentations: "Moving Mountains; or The Art of Letting Others See Things Your Way." I'm still in the early chapters and it has some interesting points. But one thing that strikes me is how the world has changed since 1969 when the book was written. Henry Boettinger writes (p15) "Those experienced in presentations, at some time in their careers, make a profound and happy discovery: most audiences are eager to receive a message."
Wow! I wonder what Henry Boettinger would think if he experienced today's typical corporate audience about to hear a presentation from the management about the upcoming plans for change. Given the wrenching changes that this typically jaundiced audience has already been through, including the change programs that didn't work, and the less-than-full disclosure of what was behind those plans, "eager to hear the message" would not exactly describe the situation. Curious perhaps. But eager? No. Cautious, skeptical, or even hostile would be more apt descriptions.

The problems facing today's presenter in a corporate context are thus much more profound than they were back in those balmy days of 1969 when the audience was "eager to hear the message." Hence all the more need for The Leader's Guide to Storytelling!

May 19, 2005

I was in New York yesterday, and among other things, I was taping an interview on Morning Sedition, the jokey morning show on the new liberal radio network, Air America Radio discussing the archetypal stories in US politics. The interview will air either tomorrow Friday May 19 or early next week. (More details here later.)

What did we discuss? I put to them the idea that although the news appears to comprise thousands of unconnected stories, in fact the stories that really resonate fall within a small number of archetypal patterns, including: “triumphant individuals,” “the mob is at the gates!” “there’s rot at the top!” “the benevolent community,” “telling fairy stories,” “slaying the monster,” “saving the fair maiden,” or more recently, “the avenging cowboy.” I was kidding around with the hosts, Marc Maron and Mark Riley about the implications for the future of this country.

May 16, 2005

A reader wrote to me: "I've been reading about doctors who practice medical narratives for the past three years but have yet to actually have the experience! I think it would be great if doctors made a point, and felt they had the time, to actually listen to a patient beyond hearing about physical symptoms... All I get is fifteen minutes"

To which I replied: With one happy exception, my experience with the medical profession is the same as yours. This is probably because the doctors we now go to all went through medical school when there was no hint of narrative medicine. Now that it's being becoming part of the regular syllabus in medical schools, hopefully this will change.

The exception that I mentioned is someone I see for annual checkups and he does take the time to listen to my story and does give every sign of caring about me as an individual. As a result, we have a relationship and my visit becomes a kind of a conversation, which certainly makes the visit less stressful, even pleasant.

As to the cost-effectiveness of the additional time spent, I am less sure. Does the extra time spent result in improved diagnosis, e.g. earlier detection of serious problems, and fewer mis-diagnoses? It would be interesting to do some large-scale studies to find out.

Actually some of the benefits may come from the impact on the health of the medical profession itself. One of the interesting aspects of Rita Charon's work is to point to the tremendous stress that the impersonal model of medical treatment puts on the doctors, and to a lesser extent nurses. They were trained to treat the patients as broken machines, while they know all along they are dealing with human beings, with feelings, loves, hates,dreams, fears. Living with the denial of all that is apparently quite stressful. Being able to talk about it can be a huge relief, and maybe this will lead to a healthier medical profession, in several senses.

The "better listening to the patient's story" part of the article seems to me to make a lot of sense.

So also does the part about improving doctor/patient relations. (I just saw the 1991 movie, The Doctor, which movingly dramatizes the same point. In it, the top doctor - played William Hurt - thought he knew it all until he became a cancer patient, and discovered how the medical system callously treats him as a thing.)

Where I start to have some concerns about narrative medecine is when I read that someone with high cholesterol and chest pains talked with his doctor about his problems with his father and his own challenges as a father and his chest pains went away. No doubt some pains and illnesses are psychosomatic, but the implication that a lot of illnesses -- or even most illnesses -- can be "cured" in this way seems to me misleading.

May 09, 2005

According to the Washington Post this morning, "DeLay scales back power plays."

DeLay is used to doing what he feels like, not what his aides tell him. Suddenly, the old Texas brio that carried him through years of smaller controversies is on the wane.

The Facts

Republican story

Democratic story

Tom DeLay, the House majority leader, continues to defy political gravity. Three of Tom Delay former aides have been indicted in an investigation of campaign fund-raising practices; a close lobbyist friend is under criminal investigation; the House ethics committee is preparing to reconsider allegations that Mr. DeLay and his staff members violated travel rules.

Republicans in the House have not run from Tom DeLay. Rather than try to protect themselves and engineer a coup, Republican members are throwing a tribute party for him this week. President Bush is also standing firm, even taking him along on Air Force One. Republicans says he has done nothing wrong - that he's the target of unfair attacks from Democrats bent on partisan revenge. He is a noble hero, fighting off the democratic Mob at the Gates.

Democrats present DeLay as a red-cheeked tyrant who started out as a bug exterminator and rose to power in Congress with a force that earned him the nickname "the Hammer."

Democrats are content to let DeLay twist in the wind. The slower the death, the better. Every day he stays in office is a boon for their efforts to demonstrate Rot at the Top.

May 08, 2005

On the surface, the news comprises a cacophony of competing narratives. At a deeper level, the narratives fall within a much smaller number of archetypal stories. Robert Reich has suggested the following four: two of hope and two of fear:

The Triumphant Individual. This is the tale of the little guy who works hard, takes risks, believes in himself, and eventually gains wealth, fame, and honor. E.g. Rocky Balboa, Norma Rae, and Erin Brockovich. The moral: with enough effort and courage, anyone can make it in the United States.

The Benevolent Community. This is the story of neighbors and friends who roll up their sleeves and pitch in for the common good. The story is captured in the iconic New England town meeting, in frontier settlers erecting one another's barns, in neighbors volunteering as firefighters and librarians, and in small towns sending their high school achievers to college and their boys off to fight foreign wars.

The Mob at the Gates. In this story, the United States is a beacon light of virtue in a world of darkness, uniquely blessed but continuously endangered by foreign menaces. Hence the endless efforts to contain the barbarism, tyranny and evil within and beyond the borders.

The Rot at the Top. This is about the malevolence of powerful elites. It's a tale of corruption, decadence, and irresponsibility in high places--of conspiracy against the common citizen.

Other archetypal stories make their presence felt – heroic Quests, tales of people fighting real or imagined Monsters that threaten the Republic, along with tragic Vietnams, when the story goes bad. The press spends much energy finding new heroes, actively building them up in Rags to Riches stories, and then dragging them back down again, cutting them down to size, showing that after all they had feet of clay and had become part of the Rot at the Top. A favorite spectator sport is watching the former great twist in the wind. Fairy stories of both Good and Evil bound, with metaphorical Fair Maidens under threat or being rescued.

One can look at the news through a narrative lens, and see that it is not so much about facts, as it is about: what's the story?

The news

Republican story

Democratic story

Bush makes proposals to reform Social Security, with progressive indexation of benefits.

Social Security is a wasteful financial Monster, that comprises handouts, i.e. taking money away from the deserving have’s (the Triumphant Individuals who have deservedly gotten rich) and giving it to the undeserving have not’s, lazy good-for-nothings, who should have saved for their retirement, not have it given to them. Thus in cleaning up Social Security, Bush is moving to fix the financial Rot at the Top, caused by decades of liberal elite misgovernment. Bush is on a Quest to save the country from bankruptcy from the Monster of Social Security.

Just as Iraq was a fake crisis of WMD, so Social Security is another fake crisis, a mere fairy story, since the financial problems of Social Security will only materialize in 2040, if then. The actual crisis is the budget deficit, which Bush – ostrich-like – refuses to address. Bush’s real motive is to destroy Social Security. It is Bush who is the Monster, who is attacking the Fair Maiden of Social Security, thereby putting the social fabric of republic in peril. Democrats expect that cutting back on benefits will backfire politically, because it undermines the Benevolent Community, hence Democrats are keeping quiet, letting Bush twist in the wind.

May 02, 2005

Q. How do smart companies save billions of dollars on television advertising?

Establishing a brand is difficult these days, since advertising has declining credibility with consumers, who are skeptical of its claims and are inclined to reject its messages. In fact, the dirty secret of branding is that most television advertising is a colossal waste of money. By contrast, smart companies like Starbucks, Google, and The Body Shop, communicate their brand narrative without paid advertising by using their product and services to tell their story. These companies are all brand: their stores, products and services are three-dimensional stories that communicate the brand narrative. (The Leader's Guide, ch.5)

Q: Can you tell effective stories through video, websites and electronic communications?

It depends on the purpose. If you’re telling a story to an audience that’s interested and curious, e-mail, websites, virtual meetings and videoconferencing can be very effective. But if you’re trying to get a change-resistant audience to buy into a complex, strange and forbiddingly different future, The Leader’s Guide has two overriding words of advice: “Be there!” Oral storytelling is a highly interactive process and very different from sending emails or even videos. Without the interactivity, the collaborative nature of oral storytelling is absent, and hence much of its power. (The Leader's Guide, p.169)

Q. What’s unique about The Leader’s Guide to Storytelling?

The Leader’s Guide is the first comprehensive business treatment of the role of storytelling in organizations. It’s unique in identifying the narrative patterns for diverse leadership purposes in a business setting. It’s the only book to provide practical templates to assist business leaders craft their narratives. It’s the first book to look at storytelling through a business lens, and describe the similarities and differences between organizational and entertainment narrative.

Q: How does The Leader’s Guide compare to Steve Denning’s other business books?

The Springboard (2000) tells “the story of springboard storytelling” in one organization: the World Bank.

Squirrel Inc (2004) is a light-hearted animal fable demonstrating the diverse uses of storytelling in a single fictional organization of squirrels.

Storytelling in Organizations (2004), which is co-authored with Larry Prusak, John Seely Brown and Katalina Groh, presents different perspectives on why organizational storytelling has emerged at this particular time.

The Leader’s Guide to Storytelling (April 2005) presents a comprehensive and detailed treatment of the entire subject with eight different narrative patterns with examples from many real-life organizations. Peppered with dozens of examples of great, and not so great, organizational storytelling, this book offers a well-reasoned road map to excellence in communications and leadership. Comprehensive, pragmatic, educational as well as entertaining, it’s one of those books that managers and CEOs will be reading and rereading for years to come.

May 01, 2005

Q. Does storytelling really work? What’s the ROI?

For managers – and indeed most people in the knowledge economy – talk is work. If we can learn how to talk more effectively, we can become much more productive. Where storytelling gets the message across more effectively, the incremental cost is zero, or close to zero, and so the ROI is massive (p.20). The Leader’s Guide cites studies showing that storytelling is a key factor in successful change programs (pp.20-21) as well as a more effective tool to communicate difficult messages (p.22).

Q. Isn’t storytelling basically a con?

No. The foundation for successful organizational storytelling is telling the truth. Effective organizational storytelling is radically different from deception and manipulation, which can have short-term gains, but lead to distrust and lack of credibility. Authenticity is the currency of the effective organizational storyteller. Because you communicate truthfully who you are, and what you stand for, others come to know you and respect you for that. Because you speak the truth, you are believed. Because you make your values explicit and your actions are consistent with those values, your values become contagious and others start to share them. Because you listen to the world, the world listens to you. Because you are open to innovation, happy accidents happen. Because you bring meaning into the world of work, you get superior results.

Q. Can command-and-control management take your firm from good to great?

No. Jim Collins in his book, From Good to Great, was right to point out that great companies require discipline, focus and entrepreneurship. But they also depend on sustained enthusiasm, energy and pride in the organization–people who are imbued with its values. Unfortunately a traditional command-and-control approach can’t generate these elements, because it tends to kill initiative and enthusiasm rather than stimulating them. By contrast, narrative leadership techniques use well-targeted and well-deployed emotion to stimulate self-motivated, coordinated action.